Hammock v. Baker
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 64 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL PROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— 5 Dana, 110, 113 ; Breckinridge vs. Tyler. 7 B. Mon., 591; Whitmore vs. Goddy.
Read the full summary
CASE 64 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL PROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— 5 Dana, 110, 113 ; Breckinridge vs. Tyler. 7 B. Mon., 591; Whitmore vs. Goddy. Rev. Stat., sec. 8, 2 Stanton, 398. CITED— Rev. Stat., chap. 97, sec. 8. 12 B. Mon., 397; Brandenburg vs. Flynn's adm'r. 2 Vernon, 603 ; Parsons vs. Briddock. 5 Dana, 244; Patterson vs. Pope. 2 B. Mon., 305; Kouns vs. Bank of Kentucky. 12 B. Mon., 563-578 ; Bohannon vs. Com.bs. 4 Met., 247; Havens, SfC., vs. Foudry, fyc. 1 Met., 252; Hoskins vs. Parsons.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Peters
Cartmell, the creditor, certainly had the right to coerce the payment of his debt from R. H. Baker, the surety; but J. PI. Wright, the principal in the debt, was the party whose duty it was to pay it; and, after having obtained *209a judgment against him, the creditor might, with great propriety, use all lawful means to make him pay it, and thereby relieve the surety from the burden.
If judgment had been rendered against Wright, the principal, and Baker, the surety, at the same time, and the former.had replevied the debt, in which the latter had refused to join, he would certainly have been under…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Havens v. FoudryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863
3Cited by1 opinion
- Winham v. CrutcherCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1878